Central Connect (Vectare) withdraw tenders with no notice

[Cesarcollie]

Central Connect - owned by Vectare sine September 2023 - have announced a number of Essex County Council contracts will cease from this weekend. Their version of events is on their website at Vectare.co.uk. The Essex County Council response is on TravelEssex.com. It appears many journeys have not been operating and reliability has been poor.

 

[bussnapperwm]

To comply with forum rules, I've provided the text and links to the sources.

Statement from Vectare:

Company Statement - Uttlesford Bus Services - Vectare

localbus.vectare.co.uk

Central Connect acknowledge the concern that has arisen following the public announcement of the pending withdrawal of some local bus services in Uttlesford from Sunday 14th April 2024. These services are fully funded by Essex County Council, and we share residents' concerns that replacement services have not been arranged in a timely manner. Essex County Council were formally notified of our intention to cease operating the routes in question on 12th February 2024, and have, therefore, had two full months in which to arrange replacement services. The routes being withdrawn are routes 301, 316, 318, 319, 320 and 321.

Central Connect changed ownership in September 2023. The new owners' management team undertook a review of all work operated by the business, and identified a number of bus services operated under contract to Essex County Council where the timetables (created by ECC) were unachievable. The main reason for this is the increased traffic congestion as travel patterns returned to a more normal footing after COVID-19. The impact of this was severe delays and unreliability on this bus network, which has been the subject of much understandable passenger frustration.

This is something that as a business we wanted to resolve. We reported the concerns to ECC in September 2023, and then maintained a continual dialogue with them throughout autumn and winter 2023, but unfortunately received no engagement. Our concerns were heightened in January 2024 when ECC published their local bus tenders to be operational from July 2024 with exactly the same timetables which we had already told them were unachievable. This, to us, demonstrated that they were not intending to take any action, despite us making it clear to them that the timetables they required us to operate to were simply impossible.

We wrote formally to ECC in January 2024 as a final attempt at engagement, setting out our concerns and reminding them of our obligation to operate services compliantly, which they were preventing us from doing. We also told them that if no further engagement was forthcoming, we would be forced to deregister the services. Receipt of this notice was given by ECC, but no response has ever been provided.

As such, on 4th February 2024 we issued statutory Local Authority Notification forms to ECC, starting the 10 week process to deregister a local bus service. The first 28 days of this 10 week period is a local authority consultation period, allowing the local authority to engage with the bus operator proposing changes to their service(s) and discuss opportunities to mitigate any impact on the local bus network. No such engagement was forthcoming. On 12th February 2024 we wrote formally to ECC terminating our contracts to operate these bus services with them from Sunday 14th April 2024, due to their inaction preventing us from operating a legally compliant and punctual bus service.

We are extremely concerned that passengers will be left stranded next week, and believe that this is a very regrettable situation. However, we do feel that the engagement actions undertaken above gave ECC ample time firstly to attempt to resolve our concerns and allow us to continue operating the routes to achievable timetables, and then failing that to procure an alternative operator to step in. They chose to do neither.If and when we become aware of any planned replacement service(s) for these bus services we will promote this via our website and social media channels. Until then, we would advise that you contact ECC's Passenger Transport team on [email protected] or speak to your local County Councillor (https://www.essex.gov.uk/running-council/your-councillor).

Statement from Essex Council

Bus services 301, 316/318, 319/320/321 in Uttlesford

www.travelessex.co.uk

Essex County Council would like to apologise for the distress caused to residents by the disappointing actions of the bus operator. We fully understand people’s concern and have therefore worked with other operators to put as many journeys as possible in place for Monday. These will target school and peak journeys which are the most used, in the first instance.

From Monday 15th April the following services will be operated by either A2B Travel Group or Stephensons of Essex. Travel will be free until registrations are completed – we will advise when this is the case. We would like to thank these operators for their rapid response and support.

Service number and timetable

New transport provider

301 temporary timetable

A2B Travel Group, and Stephensons of Essex for 15:28 journey from Bishops Stortford

316/318 temporary timetable

A2B Travel Group

319/320/321 temporary timetable

Stephensons of Essex

We will continue to work with A2B Travel Group and Stephensons of Essex to provide the full service as soon as possible.

If you have any concerns about Central Connect (who communicate as Vectare) and the current position, please contact the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.

This page will be updated as we have more information.

 

[Megafuss]

Wow, the council actively encouraging users to contact DVSA is certainly bold

 

[richard13]

Galleon Travel 2009 trading as Vectare cancelled the DVLA service registrations effective 14 April. This is for the 320.

Reg No.	Var No.	Status	Application type	Date received	Date effective	End date	Action
PF1090194/59	3	Cancelled	Manual	03/03/2024	14/04/2024
PF1090194/59	1	Registered	Manual	06/01/2023	06/01/2023
PF1090194/59	0	Registered	Manual	01/07/2022	01/08/2022

So they did give DVLA notice. No point in complaining to them.

Why wasn't the communications with/within Essex CC working?

 

[JKP]

Looks like trust between operator and Council has broken down.

 

[Anthony ross]

Typical Essex County Council - they receive ample notice from the operator then don’t do anything but blame the operator.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Typical Essex county council recive ample notice from the operator then don’t do anything then blame the operator

Essex local bus contracts are fixed term. There is no facility for early withdrawal. The company have breached the contract. In addition- and I suspect this is the DVSA reference- there has been a huge amount of non-operation ongoing for months and months.

 

[MotCO]

Essex local bus contracts are fixed term. There is no facility for early withdrawal. The company have breached the contract. In addition- and I suspect this is the DVSA reference- there has been a huge amount of non-operation ongoing for months and months.

But the Vectare statement suggests that the timetable is unworkable - presumably insufficient time is allowed to run the journeys. This could have led to journeys not being operated in order to recoup time.

 

[richard13]

From Essex CC link above:
"If you have any concerns about Central Connect (who communicate as Vectare) and the current position, please contact the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency."

"who communicate as Vectare" - I wonder whether there is just a silly problem here, in that the contract was given to Galleon Travel 2009 Ltd / Central Connect and the recent correspondence will have been from the new owners Vectare Ltd and that somehow those 2 entities are no being connected properly at the Essex end.

The DVSA appears, from the above, to have been notified correctly, just Essex CC hasn't noticed. The registrations were cancelled in advance.

Also if the route cannot be operated within DVSA punctuality rules then the County contract must be able to be altered or cancelled. You cannot contract an illegal operation.

 

[Cesarcollie]

From Essex CC link above:
"If you have any concerns about Central Connect (who communicate as Vectare) and the current position, please contact the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency."

"who communicate as Vectare" - I wonder whether there is just a silly problem here, in that the contract was given to Galleon Travel 2009 Ltd / Central Connect and the recent correspondence will have been from the new owners Vectare Ltd and that somehow those 2 entities are no being connected properly at the Essex end.

The DVSA appears, from the above, to have been notified correctly, just Essex CC hasn't noticed. The registrations were cancelled in advance.

Also if the route cannot be operated within DVSA punctuality rules then the County contract must be able to be altered or cancelled. You cannot contract an illegal operation.

But if I were an operator I wouldn’t annoy a major customer and loads of passengers. I’d carry on running and if the Traffic Commissioner or DVSA queried late running I’d simply show them copies of all the ongoing correspondence with the contracting authority……

 

[Wolfie]

Wow, the council actively encouraging users to contact DVSA is certainly bold

Particularly if the company's version of the timeline is accurate. The council must be in danger of legal action if they continue down that path.

But if I were an operator I wouldn’t annoy a major customer and loads of passengers. I’d carry on running and if the Traffic Commissioner or DVSA queried late running I’d simply show them copies of all the ongoing correspondence with the contracting authority……

If l was cynical l would suspect that the finances are marginal and the punctuality issue offers a way out.

 

[M803UYA]

But if I were an operator I wouldn’t annoy a major customer and loads of passengers. I’d carry on running and if the Traffic Commissioner or DVSA queried late running I’d simply show them copies of all the ongoing correspondence with the contracting authority……

I suspect Vectare don't want to alienate Essex County Council given the money invested in the operations fairly recently - so for them to put out a statement suggests game over. I've had to deal with Essex previously in my career and can confirm they meet 4 weekly with their tendered service providers at county hall. Based on that knowledge I'm inclined to believe Vectare's version of events - it's impossible under that framework for the council not to have been aware of the reliability concerns the new owner would have had. It would have been brought up in those meetings and as Vectare have had a recent visit to the traffic commissioners elsewhere for bus service compliance issues it'd be foremost in their minds.

If l was cynical l would suspect that the finances are marginal and the punctuality issue offers a way out.

Whether the prices for the tenders are 'agreeable' I couldn't say.

My own experiences with them didn't end well either. We had won a number of tenders in 2016 and had been provided with a blanket cover letter from Essex to support any short notice application in line with the change date. There were a few screw ups in that whole process, and it came to light that some of the former contracts hadn't been deregistered within the 56 days window. This was an issue as the schedule change had gone through for the depot and the buses/drivers redeployed.

No problem, simply make a short notice application using the blanket cover letter to reguarlise the position.

We were a little surprised to get the Eastern Traffic Commissioner querying why we required the short notice granting given it was part and parcel of the contract changes and we'd included the letter with the forms. For clarity, short notice applications are always referred to the relevant traffic commissioner for a decision so no surprise there. The issue was on the Essex side as they'd not responded to his requests. It fell to me to make the phone calls, which made me highly popular in their building. I wasn't that popular in mine either anyway and after this episode I no longer had responsibility for that depot as the Head of Commercial gave it to someone else in the office.

'You're a major operator, this shouldn't be hard for you all to achieve' was Essex's line throughout.

So it's interesting to read the above statements from the operator concerned and notice Essex have again been caught napping on the job...... and haven't seen the registrations submitted in correct time!

 

[Leedsbusman]

But if I were an operator I wouldn’t annoy a major customer and loads of passengers. I’d carry on running and if the Traffic Commissioner or DVSA queried late running I’d simply show them copies of all the ongoing correspondence with the contracting authority……

Which would put you at risk of a PI. TCs have made it clear it’s the operators duty to run reliably regardless of what the council asks for. Yorkshire Tiger failed with a similar defence on their Shipley work I recall.

 

[M803UYA]

This is from Vectare's website, earlier post in the week. I've highlighted the relevant part in bold text.

https://localbus.vectare.co.uk/essex-central-connect-changes-13th-april

These services have been operated under contract to Essex County Council, who provide the financial support required to sustain the routes. Unfortunately the timetables provided for the services in question have proven unachievable. Sadly our efforts to resolve those issues with Essex County Council were unsuccessful and as a result our contracts to operate the routes will finish on Saturday 13th April.

We apologise sincerely for the short notice announcement of the contract expiry. Normal practice would be for a bus operator to publicly announce changes or cancellations to routes once those registration changes have been confirmed by the Traffic Commissioners Office. In this instance there has been an unusually long delay in receiving that confirmation.

At this stage we are unsure on who will be operating the services from Monday 15th April and can only advise that any queries related to services 301, 316, 318, 319, 320 & 321 going forward be directed to Essex County Councils Transport team.

I notice that one of the registrations listed above shows a submitted date of 3/3/24. When I last lived in an office, the caseworker at the bus registrations team in Leeds worked term times only - and she covered Eastern and Western traffic areas. Obviously with the passages of time things might have altered but I can't see what reason there would be for that delay in submitting that paperwork. Vectare isn't a large operation by any means so keeping track of the paperwork for service registrations would be a bit simpler given all paperwork goes to the same place in Loughborough. Interesting that the company gave Essex two weeks before submitting the cancellation application too - final opportunity to step back from this course missed somewhere but not by the operator.

On a manually submitted bus service registration - you have the form, route description sheet (street by street listing of where route goes), maps of where the route goes and a timetable. Copies of the application must go to each local authority in which the route operates. You can easily have 6/7 A4 envelopes full of paper before you've realised.

For ultimate safety I'd always send the traffic commissioner's copy via next day special delivery so I had proof of postage and a line of enquiry with the caseworker should I need to do it. Knowing what I knew about the term time working of the caseworker I'd try to ensure registrations went in when she would be handling them - Leeds does have spare cover within it, but you'll get a different signature on the letter and response time is slower.

Until you receive your letter from the traffic commissioners you're not authorised to run the variation...... but if like Vectare you're submitting deregistrations you're going to want to make sure you've got the letter before you break cover! And if it hasn't come you'd be making phone calls enquiring as to it's whereabouts. Well I would have been.

Which would put you at risk of a PI. TCs have made it clear it’s the operators duty to run reliably regardless of what the council asks for. Yorkshire Tiger failed with a similar defence on their Shipley work I recall.

You'd be at public inquiry yes but you can prove you told them and that you took the action to ensure you ran compliantly. Ultimately stopping the route would ensure no action from the commissioner but no doubt the council might not pay for breach of contract.

 

[WibbleWobble]

For ultimate safety I'd always send the traffic commissioner's copy via next day special delivery so I had proof of postage and a line of enquiry with the caseworker should I need to do it.

You don't even need to do that these days - you can email registrations to the Central Licensing Office.

 

[M803UYA]

You don't even need to do that these days - you can email registrations to the Central Licensing Office.

That's new then. It is interesting to observe that a tech company such as Vectare submits registrations manually and not through electronic bus service registration (EBSR).

 

[Megafuss]

I've not seen an Essex Council ITT. But I have seen others. All of the tenders I've seen stipulate a certain number of buses for a contract (otherwise how would a council not know the estimated costs before hand)

If the timetable needs more buses, that is on the council to sort out, not the operator.

That being said, I think Vectare should grin and bear it - others do

 

[Cesarcollie]

Particularly if the company's version of the timeline is accurate. The council must be in danger of legal action if they continue down that path.


If l was cynical l would suspect that the finances are marginal and the punctuality issue offers a way out.

That is my guess. I suspect the proposed solution used more resources, with a new higher price. But ECC would say of course that it would be unfair on other bidders to pay more money mid-term. The odd thing is that the contracts were due to finish at the end of July in any event. So the company have created huge negative PR, and jeopardised future relationships with one of their biggest customers, for the sake of just over 3 months further operation. And irrespective of the eventual outcome, there will be not inconsiderable legal costs, and I’m sure ECC will withhold monies owed to fund the extra costs they will incur from new operators.

Ans whilst the services have indeed been de registered so are ‘correctly ended’ from a DVSA/OTC perspective, I would now expect ECC to report every record of non-operation for these services and others over a period of many months - and there have been many days of complete non-operation of some services. And encouraging the public to do the same via their media release will probably mean the TC feels he has no option but to get involved.

All in all, it seems a very strange way of handling the situation. In their defence, Vectare are new and inexperienced, and perhaps with more maturity in the industry, might have handled things differently.

However, we don’t yet know both sides of the story in full (and may never do so unless it becomes the subject of a Public Inquiry) so it’s hard to be definitive.

 

[M803UYA]

That is my guess. I suspect the proposed solution used more resources, with a new higher price. But ECC would say of course that it would be unfair on other bidders to pay more money mid-term. The odd thing is that the contracts were due to finish at the end of July in any event. So the company have created huge negative PR, and jeopardised future relationships with one of their biggest customers, for the sake of just over 3 months further operation. And irrespective of the eventual outcome, there will be not inconsiderable legal costs, and I’m sure ECC will withhold monies owed to fund the extra costs they will incur from new operators.

Ans whilst the services have indeed been de registered so are ‘correctly ended’ from a DVSA/OTC perspective, I would now expect ECC to report every record of non-operation for these services and others over a period of many months - and there have been many days of complete non-operation of some services. And encouraging the public to do the same via their media release will probably mean the TC feels he has no option but to get involved.

All in all, it seems a very strange way of handling the situation. In their defence, Vectare are new and inexperienced, and perhaps with more maturity in the industry, might have handled things differently.

However, we don’t yet know both sides of the story in full (and may never do so unless it becomes the subject of a Public Inquiry) so it’s hard to be definitive.

To me, Vectare's announcement makes it clear enough what their side of it is. It's possible that any revised timetables put forward would result in fewer journeys or additional resources to maintain the timetables which means an increased cost.

It's clear from their statement that the contracts were up for retender in the summer. And that the council didn't intend to alter the services. It is typical on tendered contracts for the difference in current price and the new increased tender price to be recovered from the previous operator of the route. There would be penalties for non operation of services.

I've not seen an Essex Council ITT. But I have seen others. All of the tenders I've seen stipulate a certain number of buses for a contract (otherwise how would a council not know the estimated costs before hand)

If the timetable needs more buses, that is on the council to sort out, not the operator.

That being said, I think Vectare should grin and bear it - others do

I have seen Essex ones - they even stipulate destinations to be used on the services. Their details on routings can be scanty at best. I recall maps being included with tender documents of new housing estate not drawn at all and us having to make assumptions on the registrations. Some of which turned out to be incorrect...

It's the operator that is responsible for compliant operation of registered local bus services, not the council tendering the service that can't be compliantly operated. Over the years there have been many operators appearing before a traffic commissioner using the defence of 'the council sets the timetable, not us'.... Outcome is normally the same for the operator - fines for not complying with window of tolerance, formal warnings, bans on running new services etc.... Council, well they just find someone else to run their timetables!

So yes you could grin and bear it, but that doesn't help you when you're called up. Vectare has been before.